Moral Responsibility

[neptasur]

Hello,

If a person’s choice for an evil action can be mitigated by factors such as force of habit, or psychological factors, how does one qualify what a person is responsible for and what not? A person’s choices are always informed by other factors and so a claim of mitigated responsibility can always be made. Furthermore, the choice of evil always destroys freedom so why wouldn’t it be said that no one is ever responsible for an evil choice?

 

[HerrZJA]

I think for Force of Habit to mitigate one’s responsibility for an action, that person must still be sincerely repentant and seeking to change that habit. Psychological factors are a bit harder to cope with, but it’s all depending.

For example, I suffer from Bipolar Disorder, and have since I was quite young. I take my medication daily and go to annual councilling classes. For me, a large part of the depressive end of my cycle is anger and resentment. The fact that it’s a biological process would not excuse me if I were to fly into a rage. Now, a paranoid schizophrenic, on the other hand, would have a stronger excuse than I would in terms of mental illness inhibiting moral behaviour.

If Sins were mortal laws, it would be possible to game the system in this way. However, Moral Law is entirely different; true repentance and Confession are the only means of excusing oneself from actual sin.

Abbot Christopher Jamison, OSB, once said “[Living without sin] is impossible, but there’s a difference between saying ‘It’s impossible, so I am not going to try,’ and saying ‘It’s impossible, but I believe that God can help me move closer to it’.”

 

[neptasur]

But what do you mean by “actual sin”? Something that is objectively sinful may not be sinful for a given person based on mitigating factors.

 

[tonyrey]

If a person’s choice for an evil action can be mitigated by factors such as force of habit, or psychological factors, how does one qualify what a person is responsible for and what not?

A warm welcome to the forum!

It is impossible to know for certain on every occasion to what extent we are responsible for our actions.

A person’s choices are always informed by other factors and so a claim of mitigated responsibility can always be made.

That is true but there are different degrees of mitigation.

Furthermore, the choice of evil always destroys freedom so why wouldn’t it be said that no one is ever responsible for an evil choice?

It diminishes freedom but does not destroy it completely.

 

[HerrZJA]

But what do you mean by “actual sin”? Something that is objectively sinful may not be sinful for a given person based on mitigating factors.

Well, as I have said, I’m not totally up on my apologetics. What I mean could be best described as an analogue to preventative medicine.

If there is but a shred of a possibility we have sinned through our actions that we are capable of recognizing ourselves, we owe it to God to attend to his sacraments.

Unless I misunderstand, force of habit can make mortal sins venial, but it doesn’t excuse them. As to psychological factors, it is a matter of self-awareness. If you recognize you’re doing wrong, you’ve done wrong.

Or something like that, anyway.

 

[neptasur]

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks.